SFX: People Prefer Old School?

I've been very late getting back to this blog, and normally I always make at least one post after Arisia (2014) about something that happened there. This year there were at least two (probably more), but oh well, I'll get to at least one.

I ended up participating in couple of panels that dealt directly or tangentially with film. The first was actually regarding the looks and trends of current genre film, and the former tangentially in that it dealt specifically with design of fictional genre items. The topic that came up repeatedly though at this con (as well as similar panels at the subsequent Boskone 51 which I was able to attend this year) was the feeling that modern computer aided scenery and effects were not all that "good" and not up to the standards of much more classic FX done in older, particularly pre-CG days.

Some of this can be assigned to a lot of films which seem to revel in the extremely complex CG subjects that are animated up the wazoo, such as the Chitauri Leviathan from the "Avengers" movie or even the new Tranformers as visualized in their film appearances. These are not unique instances, but to some extent creates a kind of "what's with all the whirly bits" feel to it which perhaps to some extent detracts to how believable these objects are as "real" functional objects. Well, at least it does to me.

Wiggly Leviathan

The other and perhaps more pernicious problem is the usage of CG to create monumental sequences. These sequences used to require filming in some borderline Iron Curtain country so you could rent an army cheap to dress up in gear and charge across wheat fields or below a glass matte. The problem here is rather odd because programmers go through quite a bit of work to create realistic renders, and provide a certain amount of individual behavior through AI, and other variation in details that can easily exceed what you may get out of a set of mass produced props. Moreover, in situations where real life stunts would have been required, deadlier action can be more easily (and safely) visualized. This immense attention to detail, however, makes it obvious in the mind of a viewers that what they are seeing is of course fake.

On discussing the acknowledgment of Ray Harryhausen in the recent "Pacific Rim" credits,  a repeated remark was how much people preferred the artistry of his animation techniques. The artistry and talent required in many of the sequences involved in many of his films is undeniable, but is his animation technique comparable to even the early animations of dinosaurs seen in "Jurassic Park" which marked the first break away of stop motion for this type of movie.

The film short "Stop Motion vs. CGI as presented at the 2001 SIGGRAPH animation room (Will Vinton Studios). Details at the Inet Archive

Another aspect of old time effects that was commented about was the use of solid models as opposed to CGI in 2009's "Moon" directed by Duncan Jones. Jones used traditional miniatures as opposed to CGI to create the vehicles and exterior scenes in this movie. While this was done in the interest of the budget, Jones was also interested in capturing the look and feel of older space movies and programs such as those created by Gerry Anderson's programs (more on this below).

Pacific Rim

The context of much of the discussion I participated in was around the recent "Pacific Rim" and its clearly stated homage to Japanese kaiju genre film - i.e. the Japanese monster movie. This adds another aspect of "old timey" type effects, and that is "the man in the suit" to animate aliens and 60 foot monsters - the latter effect traditionally done though extensive use of scaled miniatures that are animated in real-time though motors and wires while interacting with a man or woman in costume. Guillermo del Toro, the film's director, made extensive use of CGI to create his kaiju, but expressly asked that all designs be able to theoretically fit a person inside them. The film also made use of some scaled miniature shots.

The film's jaegers, giant robots, pay homage to Japanese mecha genre. Mecha were also traditionally operated by a man inside when filmed as live action, but are perhaps more generally known from anime subjects such as Macross and Gundam. The mixture of monsters and robots is not unique either, as such battles were not unusual; even Godzilla and King Kong have battled their mechanical counterparts.

Godzilla vs. Mecha-Godzilla (1974) and King Kong Escapes (1967) Toho films.

Gerry Anderson's designs are also part of this design palette (that being directed by Derek Meddings special effects work for Anderson). Shows such as Stingray, Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet, and U.F.O. featured realistically designed vehicles based at elaborately engineered bases, often underground. The elaborate mechanisms of boarding and launching ships is definitely echoed in the elaborate boarding and launch procedures for the jaegers in Pacific Rim.

Thunderbird 1 launch sequence from Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds (1965-68). If you are a glutton for punishment, look for the Mars ship launch sequence in Thunderbirds are Go

It seemed to me at the time that the overwhelming positive reaction to the film in these panels had much do to the care with which the director and creative crew went to recreate the look and feel of these older movies. At the same time, there is no denying that a great deal of this work was only possible through the extensive use of computers for scene rendering, lighting effects, composing, color balance, and perhaps a slew of other visual details that were transparent to the audience.

Old vs. New

I have to admit there is a definite generation gap aspect to whether you like or dislike modern effects vs. old. In watching a recent documentary (ref below) there is repeated admiration for the artistry and talent of Ray Harryhausen and other stop motion animators, and yet is the work as "accurate" as a CGI rendition of similar subjects? Traditional stop motion animation, as well as matte or combined miniature shots, generally required fixed camera angles, and a limited set of those angles for the shot to work (unless the camera shots could be accurately computer controlled, see Magicam). The stroboscopic movement of the models was always hard to correct for, and there were always visual differences between small scale details between miniatures and combined live action were sometimes quite noticeable as being "off" (fur vs. hair for example just never worked 100%),

I think the mistake is to criticize these efforts as failures, but rather it is good to remark on their strengths. Even the "man in the suit" efforts and the usage of puppetry in effects could be remarkable for their time. A film that illustrates this type of effect quite successfully is Jim Henson's "The Dark Crystal" of 1982.

On the other hand, it is impossible to compare the original puppet Yoda to the much more detailed and nuanced Yoda of the second trilogy. While in still shots, both are very good, in movement, in spite of Frank Oz's talent, there is a bit of a giveaway - maybe if the audience didn't know beforehand?

As for miniature shots, as a model maker I certainly miss traditional models. For one thing, given their original solid existence, they were easier to recreate. Still, the multiplier effect of computing power allows new vehicles to be designed with a much higher level of detail than what was possible with traditional kitbashing. Moreover, whereas one may have done much with a collage of mixed parts (a bit of a sherman tank here, half a tractor engine, a section of a battleship deck, etc), CAD tools allows the design of a ship based on the original concept art illustrations directly and by the original concept designer. CAD tools even allow for the inside of the ship to actually fit inside the outside as designed! CG vehicles are accurate to themselves regardless of the scale of the shot or number of vehicles. This is as opposed to traditional models which would differ among themselves depending on whether it was for a long shot or a "hero model" to be used for a closeup. Traditional miniatures are also associated with other problems. Limits on possible shots due to issues of depth of field or the static nature of the occupants give away the scaled nature of objects. Miniatures, as in the case of stop motion miniatures mentioned earlier, have problems in that they can't scale their interaction to flame or water making such interaction appear "off", in spite of various photographic effects to minimize the problem.

There are so many things that computers have done to improve the appearance of fantastical ships, creatures, and environments as well as recreating scenes that would otherwise be impossibly expensive. True scale physics can also be integrated to the animation so objects and events can behave properly to the objects designed size and mass.  As a result, I cannot criticize their use in film and genre film in particular.

If there is fault, it is perhaps in the creators of these films that genuinely believe that more is more. One of the interesting things about looking at older movies is the focusing on the near as opposed to the grand, the individual as opposed to the epic. Perhaps more importantly, these creators need to know that epic visuals will not substitute for a missing plot, particularly as the tools for creating epic sequences are available pretty much to everybody (if you got to see the original version of "Star Wrecks: In the Pirkenning" it is impressive to think it was basically made in some guy's apartment). When everybody makes grandiose epics, are they still epic?

Perhaps sadder still, at least for old foggies such as myself, is that viewers no longer look at a special effects shot and wonder "how did they do that?" but instead just think the computer did this.

Stuff that's out there...

Netflix has a few rather interesting documentaries available on classic SF movies, namely a documentary on Ray Harryhausen, "Ray Harryhausen: Special Effects Titan" and "The Sci-Fi Boys" that also covers a lot of the classic creature effects and makeup. The "Making of the Godzilla Suit" covers the creation of the seminal kaiju in 1954. "The Making of the 21st Century" covers the puppet productions of Gerry Anderson in the 1960s (found it on youTube in 2 parts: Part 1, Part 2 ). For commentary on analog vs. digital, another Netflix documentary is "Side by Side", where we follow Keanu Reeves as the film looks into digital film making technology.

The argument of stop motion vs. CGI is discussed in Ethan Gilsdorf's article "Why Ray Harryhausen's stop-motion effects were more real than CGI" at boingboing.

DVD extras now provides ton of materials with regards to "behind the scenes" or "the making of..." type of titles (such as an odd industrial film "2001 a space odyssey: A look behind the future" made before that film's release). Many of these shorts have leaked to the internet and a search with the appropriate keywords will return a lot of interesting tidbits. Good hunting.